Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation)

Transcription

1 Louis Althusser 1970 Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation) First published: in La Pensée, 1970; Translated: from the French by Ben Brewster; Source: Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, Monthly Review Press 1971; Transcribed: by Andy Blunden. On the Reproduction of the Conditions of Production [1] I must now expose more fully something which was briefly glimpsed in my analysis when I spoke of the necessity to renew the means of production if production is to be possible. That was a passing hint. Now I shall consider it for itself. As Marx said, every child knows that a social formation which did not reproduce the conditions of production at the same time as it produced would not last a year. [2] The ultimate condition of production is therefore the reproduction of the conditions of production. This may be simple (reproducing exactly the previous conditions of production) or on an extended scale (expanding them). Let us ignore this last distinction for the moment. What, then, is the reproduction of the conditions of production? Here we are entering a domain which is both very familiar (since Capital Volume Two) and uniquely ignored. The tenacious obviousnesses (ideological obviousnesses of an empiricist type) of the point of view of production alone, or even of that of mere productive practice (itself abstract in relation to the process of production) are so (1 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

2 integrated into our everyday consciousness that it is extremely hard, not to say almost impossible, to raise oneself to the point of view of reproduction. Nevertheless, everything outside this point of view remains abstract (worse than one-sided: distorted) even at the level of production, and, a fortiori, at that of mere practice. Let us try and examine the matter methodically. To simplify my exposition, and assuming that every social formation arises from a dominant mode of production, I can say that the process of production sets to work the existing productive forces in and under definite relations of production. It follows that, in order to exist, every social formation must reproduce the conditions of its production at the same time as it produces, and in order to be able to produce. It must therefore reproduce: 1. the productive forces, 2. the existing relations of production. Reproduction of the Means of Production Everyone (including the bourgeois economists whose work is national accounting, or the modern macro-economic theoreticians ) now recognizes, because Marx compellingly proved it in Capital Volume Two, that no production is possible which does not allow for the reproduction of the material conditions of production: the reproduction of the means of production. The average economist, who is no different in this than the average capitalist, knows that each year it is essential to foresee what is needed to replace what has been used up or worn out in production: raw material, fixed installations (buildings), instruments of production (machines), etc. I say the average economist = the average capitalist, for they both express the point of view of the firm, regarding it as sufficient simply to give a commentary on the terms of the firm s financial accounting practice. (2 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

3 But thanks to the genius of Quesnay who first posed this glaring problem, and to the genius of Marx who resolved it, we know that the reproduction of the material conditions of production cannot be thought at the level of the firm, because it does not exist at that level in its real conditions. What happens at the level of the firm is an effect, which only gives an idea of the necessity of reproduction, but absolutely fails to allow its conditions and mechanisms to be thought. A moment s reflection is enough to be convinced of this: Mr X, a capitalist who produces woollen yarn in his spinning-mill, has to reproduce his raw material, his machines, etc. But he does not produce them for his own production other capitalists do: an Australian sheep farmer, Mr Y, a heavy engineer producing machine-tools, Mr Z, etc., etc. And Mr Y and Mr Z, in order to produce those products which are the condition of the reproduction of Mr X s conditions of production, also have to reproduce the conditions of their own production, and so on to infinity the whole in proportions such that, on the national and even the world market, the demand for means of production (for reproduction) can be satisfied by the supply. In order to think this mechanism, which leads to a kind of endless chain, it is necessary to follow Marx s global procedure, and to study in particular the relations of the circulation of capital between Department I (production of means of production) and Department II (production of means of consumption), and the realization of surplus value, in Capital, Volumes Two and Three. We shall not go into the analysis of this question. It is enough to have mentioned the existence of the necessity of the reproduction of the material conditions of production. Reproduction of Labour-Power However, the reader will not have failed to note one thing. We have discussed the reproduction of the means of production but not the reproduction of the productive forces. We have therefore ignored the reproduction of what distinguishes the (3 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

4 productive forces from the means of production, i.e. the reproduction of labour power. From the observation of what takes place in the firm, in particular from the examination of the financial accounting practice which predicts amortization and investment, we have been able to obtain an approximate idea of the existence of the material process of reproduction, but we are now entering a domain in which the observation of what happens in the firm is, if not totally blind, at least almost entirely so, and for good reason: the reproduction of labour power takes place essentially outside the firm. How is the reproduction of labour power ensured? It is ensured by giving labour power the material means with which to reproduce itself: by wages. Wages feature in the accounting of each enterprise, but as wage capital, [3] not at all as a condition of the material reproduction of labour power. However, that is in fact how it works, since wages represents only that part of the value produced by the expenditure of labour power which is indispensable for its reproduction: so indispensable to the reconstitution of the labour power of the wageearner (the wherewithal to pay for housing, food and clothing, in short to enable the wage earner to present himself again at the factory gate the next day and every further day God grants him); and we should add: indispensable for raising and educating the children in whom the proletarian reproduces himself (in n models where n = 0, 1, 2, etc...) as labour power. Remember that this quantity of value (wages) necessary for the reproduction of labour power is determined not by the needs of a biological Guaranteed Minimum Wage (Salaire Minimum Interprofessionnel Garanti) alone, but by the needs of a historical minimum (Marx noted that English workers need beer while French proletarians need wine) i.e. a historically variable minimum. I should also like to point out that this minimum is doubly historical in that it is not (4 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

5 defined by the historical needs of the working class recognized by the capitalist class, but by the historical needs imposed by the proletarian class struggle (a double class struggle: against the lengthening of the working day and against the reduction of wages). However, it is not enough to ensure for labour power the material conditions of its reproduction if it is to be reproduced as labour power. I have said that the available labour power must be competent, i.e. suitable to be set to work in the complex system of the process of production. The development of the productive forces and the type of unity historically constitutive of the productive forces at a given moment produce the result that the labour power has to be (diversely) skilled and therefore reproduced as such. Diversely: according to the requirements of the socio-technical division of labour, its different jobs and posts. How is this reproduction of the (diversified) skills of labour power provided for in a capitalist regime? Here, unlike social formations characterized by slavery or serfdom this reproduction of the skills of labour power tends (this is a tendential law) decreasingly to be provided for on the spot (apprenticeship within production itself), but is achieved more and more outside production: by the capitalist education system, and by other instances and institutions. What do children learn at school? They go varying distances in their studies, but at any rate they learn to read, to write and to add i.e. a number of techniques, and a number of other things as well, including elements (which may be rudimentary or on the contrary thoroughgoing) of scientific or literary culture, which are directly useful in the different jobs in production (one instruction for manual workers, another for technicians, a third for engineers, a final one for higher management, etc.). Thus they learn know-how. But besides these techniques and knowledges, and in learning them, children at school also learn the rules of good behaviour, i.e. the attitude that should be observed by every agent in the division of labour, according to the job he is destined for: rules of morality, civic and professional conscience, which actually means rules (5 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

6 of respect for the socio-technical division of labour and ultimately the rules of the order established by class domination. They also learn to speak proper French, to handle the workers correctly, i.e. actually (for the future capitalists and their servants) to order them about properly, i.e. (ideally) to speak to them in the right way, etc. To put this more scientifically, I shall say that the reproduction of labour power requires not only a reproduction of its skills, but also, at the same time, a reproduction of its submission to the rules of the established order, i.e. a reproduction of submission to the ruling ideology for the workers, and a reproduction of the ability to manipulate the ruling ideology correctly for the agents of exploitation and repression, so that they, too, will provide for the domination of the ruling class in words. In other words, the school (but also other State institutions like the Church, or other apparatuses like the Army) teaches know-how, but in forms which ensure subjection to the ruling ideology or the mastery of its practice. All the agents of production, exploitation and repression, not to speak of the professionals of ideology (Marx), must in one way or another be steeped in this ideology in order to perform their tasks conscientiously the tasks of the exploited (the proletarians), of the exploiters (the capitalists), of the exploiters auxiliaries (the managers), or of the high priests of the ruling ideology (its functionaries ), etc. The reproduction of labour power thus reveals as its sine qua non not only the reproduction of its skills but also the reproduction of its subjection to the ruling ideology or of the practice of that ideology, with the proviso that it is not enough to say not only but also, for it is clear that it is in the forms and under the forms of ideological subjection that provision is made for the reproduction of the skills of labour power. But this is to recognize the effective presence of a new reality: ideology. Here I shall make two comments. (6 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

7 The first is to round off my analysis of reproduction. I have just given a rapid survey of the forms of the reproduction of the productive forces, i.e. of the means of production on the one hand, and of labour power on the other. But I have not yet approached the question of the reproduction of the relations of production. This is a crucial question for the Marxist theory of the mode of production. To let it pass would be a theoretical omission worse, a serious political error. I shall therefore discuss it. But in order to obtain the means to discuss it, I shall have to make another long detour. The second comment is that in order to make this detour, I am obliged to re-raise my old question: what is a society? Infrastructure and Superstructure On a number of occasions [4] I have insisted on the revolutionary character of the Marxist conception of the social whole insofar as it is distinct from the Hegelian totality. I said (and this thesis only repeats famous propositions of historical materialism) that Marx conceived the structure of every society as constituted by levels or instances articulated by a specific determination: the infrastructure, or economic base (the unity of the productive forces and the relations of production) and the superstructure, which itself contains two levels or instances : the politicolegal (law and the State) and ideology (the different ideologies, religious, ethical, legal, political, etc.). Besides its theoretico-didactic interest (it reveals the difference between Marx and Hegel), this representation has the following crucial theoretical advantage: it makes it possible to inscribe in the theoretical apparatus of its essential concepts what I have called their respective indices of effectivity. What does this mean? (7 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

8 It is easy to see that this representation of the structure of every society as an edifice containing a base (infrastructure) on which are erected the two floors of the superstructure, is a metaphor, to be quite precise, a spatial metaphor: the metaphor of a topography (topique). [5] Like every metaphor, this metaphor suggests something, makes some thing visible. What? Precisely this: that the upper floors could not stay up (in the air) alone, if they did not rest precisely on their base. Thus the object of the metaphor of the edifice is to represent above all the determination in the last instance by the economic base. The effect of this spatial metaphor is to endow the base with an index of effectivity known by the famous terms: the determination in the last instance of what happens in the upper floors (of the superstructure) by what happens in the economic base. Given this index of effectivity in the last instance, the floors of the superstructure are clearly endowed with different indices of effectivity. What kind of indices? It is possible to say that the floors of the superstructure are not determinant in the last instance, but that they are determined by the effectivity of the base; that if they are determinant in their own (as yet undefined) ways, this is true only insofar as they are determined by the base. Their index of effectivity (or determination), as determined by the determination in the last instance of the base, is thought by the Marxist tradition in two ways: (1) there is a relative autonomy of the superstructure with respect to the base; (2) there is a reciprocal action of the superstructure on the base. We can therefore say that the great theoretical advantage of the Marxist topography, i. e. of the spatial metaphor of the edifice (base and superstructure) is simultaneously that it reveals that questions of determination (or of index of effectivity) are crucial; that it reveals that it is the base which in the last instance determines the whole edifice; and that, as a consequence, it obliges us to pose the theoretical problem of the types of derivatory effectivity peculiar to the superstructure, i.e. it obliges us to think what the Marxist tradition calls conjointly the relative autonomy of the (8 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

9 superstructure and the reciprocal action of the superstructure on the base. The greatest disadvantage of this representation of the structure of every society by the spatial metaphor of an edifice, is obviously the fact that it is metaphorical: i.e. it remains descriptive. It now seems to me that it is possible and desirable to represent things differently. NB, I do not mean by this that I want to reject the classical metaphor, for that metaphor itself requires that we go beyond it. And I am not going beyond it in order to reject it as outworn. I simply want to attempt to think what it gives us in the form of a description. I believe that it is possible and necessary to think what characterizes the essential of the existence and nature of the superstructure on the basis of reproduction. Once one takes the point of view of reproduction, many of the questions whose existence was indicated by the spatial metaphor of the edifice, but to which it could not give a conceptual answer, are immediately illuminated. My basic thesis is that it is not possible to pose these questions (and therefore to answer them) except from the point of view of reproduction. I shall give a short analysis of Law, the State and Ideology from this point of view. And I shall reveal what happens both from the point of view of practice and production on the one hand, and from that of reproduction on the other. The State The Marxist tradition is strict, here: in the Communist Manifesto and the Eighteenth Brumaire (and in all the later classical texts, above all in Marx s writings on the Paris Commune and Lenin s on State and Revolution), the State is explicitly conceived as a repressive apparatus. The State is a machine of repression, which enables the ruling classes (in the nineteenth century the bourgeois class and the class of big landowners) to ensure their domination over the working class, thus enabling the (9 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

10 former to subject the latter to the process of surplus-value extortion (i.e. to capitalist exploitation). The State is thus first of all what the Marxist classics have called the State Apparatus. This term means: not only the specialized apparatus (in the narrow sense) whose existence and necessity I have recognized in relation to the requirements of legal practice, i.e. the police, the courts, the prisons; but also the army, which (the proletariat has paid for this experience with its blood) intervenes directly as a supplementary repressive force in the last instance, when the police and its specialized auxiliary corps are outrun by events ; and above this ensemble, the head of State, the government and the administration. Presented in this form, the Marxist-Leninist theory of the State has its finger on the essential point, and not for one moment can there be any question of rejecting the fact that this really is the essential point. The State Apparatus, which defines the State as a force of repressive execution and intervention in the interests of the ruling classes in the class struggle conducted by the bourgeoisie and its allies against the proletariat, is quite certainly the State, and quite certainly defines its basic function. From Descriptive Theory to Theory as such Nevertheless, here too, as I pointed out with respect to the metaphor of the edifice (infrastructure and superstructure), this presentation of the nature of the State is still partly descriptive. As I shall often have occasion to use this adjective (descriptive), a word of explanation is necessary in order to remove any ambiguity. Whenever, in speaking of the metaphor of the edifice or of the Marxist theory of the State, I have said that these are descriptive conceptions or representations of their objects, I had no ulterior critical motives. On the contrary, I have every grounds to think that great scientific discoveries cannot help but pass through the phase of what I shall call descriptive theory. This is the first phase of every theory, at least in the (10 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

11 domain which concerns us (that of the science of social formations). As such, one might and in my opinion one must envisage this phase as a transitional one, necessary to the development of the theory. That it is transitional is inscribed in my expression: descriptive theory, which reveals in its conjunction of terms the equivalent of a kind of contradiction. In fact, the term theory clashes to some extent with the adjective descriptive which I have attached to it. This means quite precisely: (1) that the descriptive theory really is, without a shadow of a doubt, the irreversible beginning of the theory; but (2) that the descriptive form in which the theory is presented requires, precisely as an effect of this contradiction, a development of the theory which goes beyond the form of description. Let me make this idea clearer by returning to our present object: the State. When I say that the Marxist theory of the State available to us is still partly descriptive, that means first and foremost that this descriptive theory is without the shadow of a doubt precisely the beginning of the Marxist theory of the State, and that this beginning gives us the essential point, i.e. the decisive principle of every later development of the theory. Indeed, I shall call the descriptive theory of the State correct, since it is perfectly possible to make the vast majority of the facts in the domain with which it is concerned correspond to the definition it gives of its object. Thus, the definition of the State as a class State, existing in the Repressive State Apparatus, casts a brilliant light on all the facts observable in the various orders of repression whatever their domains: from the massacres of June 1848 and of the Paris Commune, of Bloody Sunday, May 1905 in Petrograd, of the Resistance, of Charonne, etc., to the mere (and relatively anodyne) interventions of a censorship which has banned Diderot s La Réligieuse or a play by Gatti on Franco; it casts light on all the direct or indirect forms of exploitation and extermination of the masses of the people (imperialist wars); it casts light on that subtle everyday domination beneath which can be glimpsed, in the forms of political democracy, for example, what Lenin, following Marx, called the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. (11 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

12 And yet the descriptive theory of the State represents a phase in the constitution of the theory which itself demands the supersession of this phase. For it is clear that if the definition in question really does give us the means to identify and recognize the facts of oppression by relating them to the State, conceived as the Repressive State Apparatus, this interrelationship gives rise to a very special kind of obviousness, about which I shall have something to say in a moment: Yes, that s how it is, that s really true! [6] And the accumulation of facts within the definition of the State may multiply examples, but it does not really advance the definition of the State, i.e. the scientific theory of the State. Every descriptive theory thus runs the risk of blocking the development of the theory, and yet that development is essential. That is why I think that, in order to develop this descriptive theory into theory as such, i.e. in order to understand further the mechanisms of the State in its functioning, I think that it is indispensable to add something to the classical definition of the State as a State Apparatus. The Essentials of the Marxist Theory of the State Let me first clarify one important point: the State (and its existence in its apparatus) has no meaning except as a function of State power. The whole of the political class struggle revolves around the State. By which I mean around the possession, i.e. the seizure and conservation of State power by a certain class or by an alliance between classes or class fractions. This first clarification obliges me to distinguish between State power (conservation of State power or seizure of State power), the objective of the political class struggle on the one hand, and the State Apparatus on the other. We know that the State Apparatus may survive, as is proved by bourgeois revolutions in nineteenth-century France (1830, 1848), by coups d état (2 December, May 1958), by collapses of the State (the fall of the Empire in 1870, of the Third Republic in 1940), or by the political rise of the petty bourgeoisie ( in France), etc., without the State Apparatus being affected or modified: it may survive (12 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

13 political events which affect the possession of State power. Even after a social revolution like that of 1917, a large part of the State Apparatus survived after the seizure of State power by the alliance of the proletariat and the small peasantry: Lenin repeated the fact again and again. It is possible to describe the distinction between state power and state apparatus as part of the Marxist theory of the state, explicitly present since Marx s Eighteenth Brumaire and Class Struggles in France. To summarize the Marxist theory of the state on this point, it can be said that the Marxist classics have always claimed that (1) the state is the repressive state apparatus, (2) state power and state apparatus must be distinguished, (3) the objective of the class struggle concerns state power, and in consequence the use of the state apparatus by the classes (or alliance of classes or of fractions of classes) holding state power as a function of their class objectives, and (4) the proletariat must seize state power in order to destroy the existing bourgeois state apparatus and, in a first phase, replace it with a quite different, proletarian, state apparatus, then in later phases set in motion a radical process, that of the destruction of the state (the end of state power, the end of every state apparatus). In this perspective, therefore, what I would propose to add to the Marxist theory of the state is already there in so many words. But it seems to me that even with this supplement, this theory is still in part descriptive, although it does now contain complex and differential elements whose functioning and action cannot be understood without recourse to further supplementary theoretical development. The State Ideological Apparatuses Thus, what has to be added to the Marxist theory of the state is something else. Here we must advance cautiously in a terrain which, in fact, the Marxist classics entered long before us, but without having systematized in theoretical form the (13 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

14 decisive advances implied by their experiences and procedures. Their experiences and procedures were indeed restricted in the main to the terrain of political practice. In fact, i.e. in their political practice, the Marxist classics treated the State as a more complex reality than the definition of it given in the Marxist theory of the state, even when it has been supplemented as I have just suggested. They recognized this complexity in their practice, but they did not express it in a corresponding theory. [7] I should like to attempt a very schematic outline of this corresponding theory. To that end, I propose the following thesis. In order to advance the theory of the State it is indispensable to take into account not only the distinction between state power and state apparatus, but also another reality which is clearly on the side of the (repressive) state apparatus, but must not be confused with it. I shall call this reality by its concept: the Ideological State Apparatuses. What are the Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs)? They must not be confused with the (repressive) State apparatus. Remember that in Marxist theory, the State Apparatus (SA) contains: the Government, the Administration, the Army, the Police, the Courts, the Prisons, etc., which constitute what I shall in future call the Repressive State Apparatus. Repressive suggests that the State Apparatus in question functions by violence at least ultimately (since repression, e.g. administrative repression, may take non-physical forms). I shall call Ideological State Apparatuses a certain number of realities which present themselves to the immediate observer in the form of distinct and specialized institutions. I propose an empirical list of these which will obviously have to be examined in detail, tested, corrected and re-organized. With all the reservations implied by this requirement, we can for the moment regard the following institutions as Ideological State Apparatuses (the order in which I have listed them has no particular significance): (14 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

15 the religious ISA (the system of the different churches), the educational ISA (the system of the different public and private schools ), the family ISA, [8] the legal ISA, [9] the political ISA (the political system, including the different parties), the trade-union ISA, the communications ISA (press, radio and television, etc.), the cultural ISA (literature, the arts, sports, etc.). I have said that the ISAs must not be confused with the (Repressive) State Apparatus. What constitutes the difference? As a first moment, it is clear that while there is one (Repressive) State Apparatus, there is a plurality of Ideological State Apparatuses. Even presupposing that it exists, the unity that constitutes this plurality of ISAs as a body is not immediately visible. As a second moment, it is clear that whereas the unified (Repressive) State Apparatus belongs entirely to the public domain, much the larger part of the Ideological State Apparatuses (in their apparent dispersion) are part, on the contrary, of the private domain. Churches, Parties, Trade Unions, families, some schools, most newspapers, cultural ventures, etc., etc., are private. We can ignore the first observation for the moment. But someone is bound to question the second, asking me by what right I regard as Ideological State Apparatuses, institutions which for the most part do not possess public status, but are quite simply private institutions. As a conscious Marxist, Gramsci already forestalled this objection in one sentence. The distinction between the public and the private is a distinction internal to bourgeois law, and valid in the (subordinate) domains in which bourgeois law exercises its authority. The domain of the State escapes it because the latter is above the law : the State, which is the State of the ruling class, is neither public nor private; on the contrary, it is the precondition for any distinction between public and private. The same thing can be said from the starting-point of our State (15 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

16 Ideological Apparatuses. It is unimportant whether the institutions in which they are realized are public or private. What matters is how they function. Private institutions can perfectly well function as Ideological State Apparatuses. A reasonably thorough analysis of any one of the ISAs proves it. But now for what is essential. What distinguishes the ISAs from the (Repressive) State Apparatus is the following basic difference: the Repressive State Apparatus functions by violence, whereas the Ideological State Apparatuses function by ideology. I can clarify matters by correcting this distinction. I shall say rather that every State Apparatus, whether Repressive or Ideological, functions both by violence and by ideology, but with one very important distinction which makes it imperative not to confuse the Ideological State Apparatuses with the (Repressive) State Apparatus. This is the fact that the (Repressive) State Apparatus functions massively and predominantly by repression (including physical repression), while functioning secondarily by ideology. (There is no such thing as a purely repressive apparatus.) For example, the Army and the Police also function by ideology both to ensure their own cohesion and reproduction, and in the values they propound externally. In the same way, but inversely, it is essential to say that for their part the Ideological State Apparatuses function massively and predominantly by ideology, but they also function secondarily by repression, even if ultimately, but only ultimately, this is very attenuated and concealed, even symbolic. (There is no such thing as a purely ideological apparatus.) Thus Schools and Churches use suitable methods of punishment, expulsion, selection, etc., to discipline not only their shepherds, but also their flocks. The same is true of the Family... The same is true of the cultural IS Apparatus (censorship, among other things), etc. Is it necessary to add that this determination of the double functioning (predominantly, secondarily) by repression and by ideology, according to whether it is a matter of the (Repressive) State Apparatus or the Ideological State (16 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

17 Apparatuses, makes it clear that very subtle explicit or tacit combinations may be woven from the interplay of the (Repressive) State Apparatus and the Ideological State Apparatuses? Everyday life provides us with innumerable examples of this, but they must be studied in detail if we are to go further than this mere observation. Nevertheless, this remark leads us towards an understanding of what constitutes the unity of the apparently disparate body of the ISAs. If the ISAs function massively and predominantly by ideology, what unifies their diversity is precisely this functioning, insofar as the ideology by which they function is always in fact unified, despite its diversity and its contradictions, beneath the ruling ideology, which is the ideology of the ruling class. Given the fact that the ruling class in principle holds State power (openly or more often by means of alliances between classes or class fractions), and therefore has at its disposal the (Repressive) State Apparatus, we can accept the fact that this same ruling class is active in the Ideological State Apparatuses insofar as it is ultimately the ruling ideology which is realized in the Ideological State Apparatuses, precisely in its contradictions. Of course, it is a quite different thing to act by laws and decrees in the (Repressive) State Apparatus and to act through the intermediary of the ruling ideology in the Ideological State Apparatuses. We must go into the details of this difference but it cannot mask the reality of a profound identity. To my knowledge, no class can hold State power over a long period without at the same time exercising its hegemony over and in the State Ideological Apparatuses. I only need one example and proof of this: Lenin s anguished concern to revolutionize the educational Ideological State Apparatus (among others), simply to make it possible for the Soviet proletariat, who had seized State power, to secure the future of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the transition to socialism. [10] This last comment puts us in a position to understand that the Ideological State Apparatuses may be not only the stake, but also the site of class struggle, and often of bitter forms of class struggle. The class (or class alliance) in power cannot lay down the law in the ISAs as easily as it can in the (repressive) State apparatus, not only because the former ruling classes are able to retain strong positions there for a long (17 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

18 time, but also because the resistance of the exploited classes is able to find means and occasions to express itself there, either by the utilization of their contradictions, or by conquering combat positions in them in struggle. [11] Let me run through my comments. If the thesis I have proposed is well-founded, it leads me back to the classical Marxist theory of the State, while making it more precise in one point. I argue that it is necessary to distinguish between State power (and its possession by...) on the one hand, and the State Apparatus on the other. But I add that the State Apparatus contains two bodies: the body of institutions which represent the Repressive State Apparatus on the one hand, and the body of institutions which represent the body of Ideological State Apparatuses on the other. But if this is the case, the following question is bound to be asked, even in the very summary state of my suggestions: what exactly is the extent of the role of the Ideological State Apparatuses? What is their importance based on? In other words: to what does the function of these Ideological State Apparatuses, which do not function by repression but by ideology, correspond? On the Reproduction of the Relations of Production I can now answer the central question which I have left in suspense for many long pages: how is the reproduction of the relations of production secured? In the topographical language (Infrastructure, Superstructure), I can say: for the most part, [12] it is secured by the legal-political and ideological superstructure. But as I have argued that it is essential to go beyond this still descriptive language, I shall say: for the most part, it is secured by the exercise of State power in the State Apparatuses, on the one hand the (Repressive) State Apparatus, on the other the (18 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

19 Ideological State Apparatuses. What I have just said must also be taken into account, and it can be assembled in the form of the following three features: 1. All the State Apparatuses function both by repression and by ideology, with the difference that the (Repressive) State Apparatus functions massively and predominantly by repression, whereas the Ideological State Apparatuses function massively and predominantly by ideology. 2. Whereas the (Repressive) State Apparatus constitutes an organized whole whose different parts are centralized beneath a commanding unity, that of the politics of class struggle applied by the political representatives of the ruling classes in possession of State power, the Ideological State Apparatuses are multiple, distinct, relatively autonomous and capable of providing an objective field to contradictions which express, in forms which may be limited or extreme, the effects of the clashes between the capitalist class struggle and the proletarian class struggle, as well as their subordinate forms. 3. Whereas the unity of the (Repressive) State Apparatus is secured by its unified and centralized organization under the leadership of the representatives of the classes in power executing the politics of the class struggle of the classes in power, the unity of the different Ideological State Apparatuses is secured, usually in contradictory forms, by the ruling ideology, the ideology of the ruling class. Taking these features into account, it is possible to represent the reproduction of the relations of production [13] in the following way, according to a kind of division of labour. The role of the repressive State apparatus, insofar as it is a repressive apparatus, consists essentially in securing by force (physical or otherwise) the political (19 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

20 conditions of the reproduction of relations of production which are in the last resort relations of exploitation. Not only does the State apparatus contribute generously to its own reproduction (the capitalist State contains political dynasties, military dynasties, etc.), but also and above all, the State apparatus secures by repression (from the most brutal physical force, via mere administrative commands and interdictions, to open and tacit censorship) the political conditions for the action of the Ideological State Apparatuses. In fact, it is the latter which largely secure the reproduction specifically of the relations of production, behind a shield provided by the repressive State apparatus. It is here that the role of the ruling ideology is heavily concentrated, the ideology of the ruling class, which holds State power. It is the intermediation of the ruling ideology that ensures a (sometimes teeth-gritting) harmony between the repressive State apparatus and the Ideological State Apparatuses, and between the different State Ideological Apparatuses. We are thus led to envisage the following hypothesis, as a function precisely of the diversity of ideological State Apparatuses in their single, because shared, role of the reproduction of the relations of production. Indeed we have listed a relatively large number of Ideological State Apparatuses in contemporary capitalist social formations: the educational apparatus, the religious apparatus, the family apparatus, the political apparatus, the trade-union apparatus, the communications apparatus, the cultural apparatus, etc. But in the social formations of that mode of production characterized by serfdom (usually called the feudal mode of production), we observe that although there is a single repressive State apparatus which, since the earliest known Ancient States, let alone the Absolute Monarchies, has been formally very similar to the one we know today, the number of Ideological State Apparatuses is smaller and their individual types are different. For example, we observe that during the Middle Ages, the Church (the religious Ideological State Apparatus) accumulated a number of functions which have today devolved on to several distinct Ideological State (20 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

21 Apparatuses, new ones in relation to the past I am invoking, in particular educational and cultural functions. Alongside the Church there was the family Ideological State Apparatus, which played a considerable part, incommensurable with its role in capitalist social formations. Despite appearances, the Church and the Family were not the only Ideological State Apparatuses. There was also a political Ideological State Apparatus (the Estates General, the Parlement, the different political factions and Leagues, the ancestors of the modern political parties, and the whole political system of the free Communes and then of the Villes). There was also a powerful proto-trade union Ideological State Apparatus, if I may venture such an anachronistic term (the powerful merchants and bankers guilds and the journeymen s associations, etc.). Publishing and Communications, even, saw an indisputable development, as did the theatre; initially both were integral parts of the Church, then they became more and more independent of it. In the pre-capitalist historical period which I have examined extremely broadly, it is absolutely clear that there was one dominant Ideological State Apparatus, the Church, which concentrated within it not only religious functions, but also educational ones, and a large proportion of the functions of communications and culture. It is no accident that all ideological struggle, from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, starting with the first shocks of the Reformation, was concentrated in an anti-clerical and anti-religious struggle; rather this is a function precisely of the dominant position of the religious Ideological State Apparatus. The foremost objective and achievement of the French Revolution was not just to transfer State power from the feudal aristocracy to the merchant-capitalist bourgeoisie, to break part of the former repressive State apparatus and replace it with a new one (e.g., the national popular Army) but also to attack the number-one Ideological State Apparatus: the Church. Hence the civil constitution of the clergy, the confiscation of ecclesiastical wealth, and the creation of new Ideological State Apparatuses to replace the religious Ideological State Apparatus in its dominant role. Naturally, these things did not happen automatically: witness the Concordat, the Restoration and the long class struggle between the landed aristocracy and the (21 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

22 industrial bourgeoisie throughout the nineteenth century for the establishment of bourgeois hegemony over the functions formerly fulfilled by the Church: above all by the Schools. It can be said that the bourgeoisie relied on the new political, parliamentary-democratic, Ideological State Apparatus, installed in the earliest years of the Revolution, then restored after long and violent struggles, for a few months in 1848 and for decades after the fall of the Second Empire, in order to conduct its struggle against the Church and wrest its ideological functions away from it, in other words, to ensure not only its own political hegemony, but also the ideological hegemony indispensable to the reproduction of capitalist relations of production. That is why I believe that I am justified in advancing the following Thesis, however precarious it is. I believe that the Ideological State Apparatus which has been installed in the dominant position in mature capitalist social formations as a result of a violent political and ideological class struggle against the old dominant Ideological State Apparatus, is the educational ideological apparatus. This thesis may seem paradoxical, given that for everyone, i.e. in the ideological representation that the bourgeoisie has tried to give itself and the classes it exploits, it really seems that the dominant Ideological State Apparatus in capitalist social formations is not the Schools, but the political Ideological State Apparatus, i.e. the regime of parliamentary democracy combining universal suffrage and party struggle. However, history, even recent history, shows that the bourgeoisie has been and still is able to accommodate itself to political Ideological State Apparatuses other than parliamentary democracy: the First and Second Empires, Constitutional Monarchy (Louis XVIII and Charles X), Parliamentary Monarchy (Louis-Philippe), Presidential Democracy (de Gaulle), to mention only France. In England this is even clearer. The Revolution was particularly successful there from the bourgeois point of view, since unlike France, where the bourgeoisie, partly because of the stupidity of the petty aristocracy, had to agree to being carried to power by peasant and plebeian journées révolutionnaires, something for which it had to pay a high price, the English bourgeoisie was able to compromise with the aristocracy and share State power and the use of the State apparatus with it for a long time (peace among all men of (22 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

23 good will in the ruling classes!). In Germany it is even more striking, since it was behind a political Ideological State Apparatus in which the imperial Junkers (epitomized by Bismarck), their army and their police provided it with a shield and leading personnel, that the imperialist bourgeoisie made its shattering entry into history, before traversing the Weimar Republic and entrusting itself to Nazism. Hence I believe I have good reasons for thinking that behind the scenes of its political Ideological State Apparatus, which occupies the front of the stage, what the bourgeoisie has installed as its number-one, i.e. as its dominant Ideological State Apparatus, is the educational apparatus, which has in fact replaced in its functions the previously dominant Ideological State Apparatus, the Church. One might even add: the School-Family couple has replaced the Church-Family couple. Why is the educational apparatus in fact the dominant Ideological State Apparatus in capitalist social formations, and how does it function? For the moment it must suffice to say: 1. All Ideological State Apparatuses, whatever they are, contribute to the same result: the reproduction of the relations of production, i.e. of capitalist relations of exploitation. 2. Each of them contributes towards this single result in the way proper to it. The political apparatus by subjecting individuals to the political State ideology, the indirect (parliamentary) or direct (plebiscitary or fascist) democratic ideology. The communications apparatus by cramming every citizen with daily doses of nationalism, chauvinism, liberalism, moralism, etc, by means of the press, the radio and television. The same goes for the cultural apparatus (the role of sport in chauvinism is of the first importance), etc. The religious apparatus by recalling in sermons and the other great ceremonies of Birth, Marriage and Death, that man is only ashes, unless he loves his neighbour to the extent of turning the other cheek to whoever strikes first. The family apparatus...but there is no need to go on. (23 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]

24 3. This concert is dominated by a single score, occasionally disturbed by contradictions (those of the remnants of former ruling classes, those of the proletarians and their organizations): the score of the Ideology of the current ruling class which integrates into its music the great themes of the Humanism of the Great Forefathers, who produced the Greek Miracle even before Christianity, and afterwards the Glory of Rome, the Eternal City, and the themes of Interest, particular and general, etc. nationalism, moralism and economism. 4. Nevertheless, in this concert, one Ideological State Apparatus certainly has the dominant role, although hardly anyone lends an ear to its music: it is so silent! This is the School. It takes children from every class at infant-school age, and then for years, the years in which the child is most vulnerable, squeezed between the Family State Apparatus and the Educational State Apparatus, it drums into them, whether it uses new or old methods, a certain amount of know-how wrapped in the ruling ideology (French, arithmetic, natural history, the sciences, literature) or simply the ruling ideology in its pure state (ethics, civic instruction, philosophy). Somewhere around the age of sixteen, a huge mass of children are ejected into production : these are the workers or small peasants. Another portion of scholastically adapted youth carries on: and, for better or worse, it goes somewhat further, until it falls by the wayside and fills the posts of small and middle technicians, white-collar workers, small and middle executives, petty bourgeois of all kinds. A last portion reaches the summit, either to fall into intellectual semi-employment, or to provide, as well as the intellectuals of the collective labourer, the agents of exploitation (capitalists, managers), the agents of repression (soldiers, policemen, politicians, administrators, etc.) and the professional ideologists (priests of all sorts, most of whom are convinced laymen ). Each mass ejected en route is practically provided with the ideology which suits the role it has to fulfil in class society: the role of the exploited (with a highlydeveloped professional, ethical, civic, national and a-political consciousness); the role of the agent of exploitation (ability to give the workers orders and speak to them: human relations ), of the agent of repression (ability to give orders and enforce (24 of 52) [3/3/2013 5:13:37 PM]